New law giving the president more power

[SkinBasket]

At least these law scholars aren't tied to one political party and all its ideologies.

LOL. If you actually believe that, I've got a political campaign for you to donate to and a big red bridge to sell you.

It's not the legnth of the article that's a problem, it's just the AP thread over at the ol' shithole became nothing more than those guys posting whole articles back and forth. We could spend forever and a weekend googling any subject and finding articles saying whatever we want them to say then posting them here. I would rather you chose the parts you like, cite the article (or don;t, its not like anyone cares enough to look into it), and put those points forward. Makes for a much more interactive and interesting debate - especially on such a boring topic.

[ahaha]

At least these law scholars aren't tied to one political party and all its ideologies.

LOL. If you actually believe that, I've got a political campaign for you to donate to and a big red bridge to sell you.

You didn't quote the first part of my statement where I said that everyone is biased. You have to take any point made on a political issue with a critical mind, duh. That doesn't mean this symposium was all card caring democrats towing the party line.

The parts I found most interesting were the paragraphs about Philip Zimbardo, the psychology professor emeritus. You may think he's all about pushing the democrats agenda, but I think he's a man who has made his life's work the study of toture as a policy and how that affects those caught up in its mechanizations.

During the second half of the conference, Philip Zimbardo, psychology professor emeritus, presented shocking and gruesome images of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib, and compared the scandal to his 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment. In the latter, Zimbardo explained, he randomly assigned normal, healthy college students to play either prisoners or guards in what was to be a two-week study. He called off the experiment after only six days because the "guards" quickly became sadistic and the "prisoners" broke down. Recently, Zimbardo acted as an expert witness in the trial of one of the accused military police officers at Abu Ghraib prison, Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, and he described how an all-American patriot could turn into a sadistic guard. Zimbardo's upcoming book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, details his findings. "We want to believe that good and evil are separate, that it's 'them, not me,'" he said. In fact, both characteristics are present in human nature and, rather than exclusively blaming a flawed character, attention also should be paid to the external situation or system within which people operate, he said. Instead of blaming the atrocities at Abu Ghraib on a few "bad apples," as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did, Zimbardo pointed to the corruption of ordinary people within the context of powerful situational forces—the "bad barrel"—and the leaders who allow the situation to happen—the "bad barrel makers."

"The 'bad apple' theory is what every administration uses to protect itself," Zimbardo said. "Evil is intentionally behaving [badly], or having the power to cause others to act [badly]. Evil is knowing better and doing worse." In the face of overwhelming situational forces, Zimbardo said, it is rare for a person to resist publicly. He noted that Army Reserve Spc. Joe Darby, who exposed the abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib, did so at great personal risk."

Believe this guy, or not? I think he raises some good points about the dangers of having torture as an accepted policy. I tend to believe his view that even good guards can turn bad in a situation where torture is law and sanctioned from the top brass.

[KYPack]

Not a bad thread.

Although it might be disintegrating.

Doesn't this whole deal belong in the RR?

(Holy Shit! I didn't realize I was in the RR! I leave the post so other people can see how stupid I can get.)

[mraynrand]

At least these law scholars aren't tied to one political party and all its ideologies.

LOL. If you actually believe that, I've got a political campaign for you to donate to and a big red bridge to sell you.

You didn't quote the first part of my statement where I said that everyone is biased. You have to take any point made on a political issue with a critical mind, duh. That doesn't mean this symposium was all card caring democrats towing the party line.

The parts I found most interesting were the paragraphs about Philip Zimbardo, the psychology professor emeritus. You may think he's all about pushing the democrats agenda, but I think he's a man who has made his life's work the study of toture as a policy and how that affects those caught up in its mechanizations.

During the second half of the conference, Philip Zimbardo, psychology professor emeritus, presented shocking and gruesome images of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib, and compared the scandal to his 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment. In the latter, Zimbardo explained, he randomly assigned normal, healthy college students to play either prisoners or guards in what was to be a two-week study. He called off the experiment after only six days because the "guards" quickly became sadistic and the "prisoners" broke down. Recently, Zimbardo acted as an expert witness in the trial of one of the accused military police officers at Abu Ghraib prison, Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, and he described how an all-American patriot could turn into a sadistic guard. Zimbardo's upcoming book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, details his findings. "We want to believe that good and evil are separate, that it's 'them, not me,'" he said. In fact, both characteristics are present in human nature and, rather than exclusively blaming a flawed character, attention also should be paid to the external situation or system within which people operate, he said. Instead of blaming the atrocities at Abu Ghraib on a few "bad apples," as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did, Zimbardo pointed to the corruption of ordinary people within the context of powerful situational forces—the "bad barrel"—and the leaders who allow the situation to happen—the "bad barrel makers."

"The 'bad apple' theory is what every administration uses to protect itself," Zimbardo said. "Evil is intentionally behaving [badly], or having the power to cause others to act [badly]. Evil is knowing better and doing worse." In the face of overwhelming situational forces, Zimbardo said, it is rare for a person to resist publicly. He noted that Army Reserve Spc. Joe Darby, who exposed the abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib, did so at great personal risk."

Believe this guy, or not? I think he raises some good points about the dangers of having torture as an accepted policy. I tend to believe his view that even good guards can turn bad in a situation where torture is law and sanctioned from the top brass.

I think he raises some good points about the dangers of having torture as an accepted policy.

Or you could look at it a different way. If you accept his premise, just so long as there is a situation with guards and prisoners, you will be unable to avoid situations of 'corruption' among the guards. His social experiment has often been cited, in most cases to argue against typical prison environment. So let's assume he's right. Then the only way to prevent such occurances is to stop war, not take prisoners, or completely change the way prisoners are dealt with. Experiments in American prisons have dealt with techniques for rehabilitation, early release with supervison, halfway houses, extended parole, etc. etc. So I guess you have to ask yourself how we will rehabilitate or 'parole' al Quaeda members who have been brainwashed possibly their entire lives to hate the U.S. and to do everything intheir power to kill Americans. If you can come up with a plan, I'd like to hear it. (Maybe we could put Mike Dukakis and Willie Horton in charge!).

A related issue is that the study demonstrates the effects such prison environments can have on the 'jailers,' yet what the law was really addressing was not so much the jailing, but the acceptable interrogation techniques. Still, it's nice to see you cite research that, even though it may be unintended, shows concern for the well-being of the mental state of the 'jailers' or interrogators. I feel a lot of sympathy for these guys, knowing what they know. having to deal with extracting information from people who are plotting to slaughter Americans in all kinds of barbaric manners. It's got to weigh heavily on these guys, most of whom come from decent backgrounds and are highly moral and patriotic.

[Guiness]

Exactly who's "civil liberties and human rights" does this bill erode again? Maybe one of you guys wringing your hands over this could give us one example of how this bill effects your civil liberties or infringes on your human rights.

Wow. Our very own budding FYI right here on Packer Rats.

Who's civil liberties could be eroded? Ask Maher Arar. He'll have a good answer.

[Joemailman]

Exactly who's "civil liberties and human rights" does this bill erode again? Maybe one of you guys wringing your hands over this could give us one example of how this bill effects your civil liberties or infringes on your human rights.

So based on your thinking, Christian Germans in the 1930's were right not to oppose what the Nazis were doing to the Jews. After all, it didn't affect them, right? When citizens let their government take away their civil rights, they are laying the groundwork for a situation where anyone's civil rights can be taken away. My concern about this law has little to with what I think Bush will do with it. What this law does is create a situation where if a really evil person were to ascend to the presidency, his or her ability to do harm would be greatly enhanced by the unprecedented powers a cowardly Congress has ceded to the Presidency. With this legislation, we have allowed Bin Laden to force us to live less freely before we did on 9/11.

[SkinBasket]

Exactly who's "civil liberties and human rights" does this bill erode again? Maybe one of you guys wringing your hands over this could give us one example of how this bill effects your civil liberties or infringes on your human rights.

So based on your thinking, Christian Germans in the 1930's were right not to oppose what the Nazis were doing to the Jews. After all, it didn't affect them, right? When citizens let their government take away their civil rights, they are laying the groundwork for a situation where anyone's civil rights can be taken away. My concern about this law has little to with what I think Bush will do with it. What this law does is create a situation where if a really evil person were to ascend to the presidency, his or her ability to do harm would be greatly enhanced by the unprecedented powers a cowardly Congress has ceded to the Presidency. With this legislation, we have allowed Bin Laden to force us to live less freely before we did on 9/11.

WHAT?! We're talking about this one bill - not the holocaust. Of course, I guess it's easier to just link the passage of this bill to some tragic event in world history instead of trying to prove whatever wacky point it is you're trying to make. Regardless of what you "think" the president will do with it, if you've read the thread up til now, you'll see what HAS been done with it.

As far as your unfounded fears of some prime evil ascending to the presidency and using this bill to begin his reign of terror and darkness... lol... I'm sorry, but do you walk around with a tinfoil hat too?

[SkinBasket]

Exactly who's "civil liberties and human rights" does this bill erode again? Maybe one of you guys wringing your hands over this could give us one example of how this bill effects your civil liberties or infringes on your human rights.

Wow. Our very own budding FYI right here on Packer Rats.

Who's civil liberties could be eroded? Ask Maher Arar. He'll have a good answer.

Should I ask any other Canadian citizens how this bill erodes their rights and liberties guaranteed under the US Constitution? Oh, yeah, they don't have any, because they're Canadian.

If Mr. Arar wants to address Canadian officials about how he was treated in Syria and how his Canadian rights and liberties were abused, then that's wonderful. He probably should.

[Cleft Crusty]

edit - Clft Crusty doesn't comment on politics.

[SkinBasket]

At least these law scholars aren't tied to one political party and all its ideologies.

LOL. If you actually believe that, I've got a political campaign for you to donate to and a big red bridge to sell you.

You didn't quote the first part of my statement where I said that everyone is biased. You have to take any point made on a political issue with a critical mind, duh. That doesn't mean this symposium was all card caring democrats towing the party line.

A "symposium" attacking the policies of the administration consisting of several New Yorker writers and a professor neck deep in the NYU/UC-Berkely culture who's more interested in selling his book delving into his own delusions of grandeur and feelings of unrequited 1970s remorse doesn't strike me as a terribly non-political event. Maybe I'm just a little more skeptical than most though.

[mraynrand]

Exactly who's "civil liberties and human rights" does this bill erode again? Maybe one of you guys wringing your hands over this could give us one example of how this bill effects your civil liberties or infringes on your human rights.

Wow. Our very own budding FYI right here on Packer Rats.

Who's civil liberties could be eroded? Ask Maher Arar. He'll have a good answer.

Since when did Maher Arar become an American citizen? Should our bill of rights extend to foreigners the same as to citizens? Of course there are some laws and some international agreements that we're obligated to adhere to, but in this case, the U.S. acted on intelligence from the RCMP that he had ties to al Quaeda types. As a natural born Syrian who emigrated to Canada, they deported him to Syria. Also, officials visited Arar seven times in Damascus before he claimed he was being tortured. The officials saw no evidence of torture and the only evidence remains the guy's own testimony.

This case doesn't even address the Bill in question, and it confuses the issue by comparing apples and oranges (Citizens versus foreigners). The issue is whether more severe forms of interrogation can be used in extreme situations. Let me ask you guys this - how many of you would water-board Kahlid Sheik Mohammed is you knew he knew the whereabouts of al Quaeda sleeper cells in the U.S. and no other methods of interrogation were working? I'd do it in a second.

And Joe Mailman - answer the question. How many Americans have had their civil liberities infringe upon by this bill?

Finally, I hate to say it, but there will be mistakes made in trying to pursue and track these terrorist types. I don't like it at all, but it's the reality of war, and is even more difficult in a war against insidious terrorists. But, as Osama has said himself, they are relying on our squeamishness and our plethora of groups dedicated to undermining our efforts to pursue the war on islamic fundamentalist terrorism, like the ACLU and amnesty international.

[ahaha]

The issue is whether more severe forms of interrogation can be used in extreme situations. Let me ask you guys this - how many of you would water-board Kahlid Sheik Mohammed is you knew he knew the whereabouts of al Quaeda sleeper cells in the U.S. and no other methods of interrogation were working? I'd do it in a second.

I hate this argument. It is only in an extreme case like this that this bill makes any sense. The problem is the all the avenues for abuse. All suspects with alleged ties to terrorism are subject to these more severe forms of interrogation(i.e. torture). If this legislation is so important, why wasn't it instituted in the past? Why didn't we torture captured German officers during WWII? We could have gotten critical info on U-boat activity in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, info on threats to our shipping and homefront activities. Or what about Japanese officers during the same time? Their army was full of fanatical anti-american fervor and a desire to hurt us any way they could. What about the communists in Korea and Vietnam. Wouldn't state sanctioned torture have given us good info that could have saved American soldiers' lives? The answer is that lawful torture is against what we stand for, no matter what we think our enemy might know.

Finally, I hate to say it, but there will be mistakes made in trying to pursue and track these terrorist types. I don't like it at all, but it's the reality of war, and is even more difficult in a war against insidious terrorists. But, as Osama has said himself, they are relying on our squeamishness and our plethora of groups dedicated to undermining our efforts to pursue the war on islamic fundamentalist terrorism, like the ACLU and amnesty international.

The war on terrorism will last forever. It's always been a threat and always will be. Our goal should be to limit its power. We need to get the civilized world to help us isolate those countries who support it, strike military targets when they become a legit threat, and stand as an example of freedom and justice to normal people living in these strongly fundamental countries. State sanctioned torture does not help us in this.
Also, I can't believe you used Osama's statements to demonize groups like the ACLU and Amnesty International. Sure, sometimes they represent the rights on the worst, but that's because they believe in the rights of all humanity. They are a stand as a check against possible abuses of government, even though their only power is to persuade the population to their beliefs. There are so many things about our country that Osama and his group can exploit. We're a country of checks and balances to power, not a totalitarian regime. If we got rid of the legislative and judicial branches of government, it would be a lot harder for terrorists to take advantage of our "squemishness". We could get rid of citizens' right to protest and disolve the free press. That would make it a lot harder for Osama to exploit our problem with groups trying undermine the war on terror. How far are we willing to go to be safe? Fuck Osama and what he says about our freedom to disent!

[mraynrand]

The issue is whether more severe forms of interrogation can be used in extreme situations. Let me ask you guys this - how many of you would water-board Kahlid Sheik Mohammed is you knew he knew the whereabouts of al Quaeda sleeper cells in the U.S. and no other methods of interrogation were working? I'd do it in a second.

I hate this argument. It is only in an extreme case like this that this bill makes any sense. The problem is the all the avenues for abuse. All suspects with alleged ties to terrorism are subject to these more severe forms of interrogation(i.e. torture). If this legislation is so important, why wasn't it instituted in the past? Why didn't we torture captured German officers during WWII? We could have gotten critical info on U-boat activity in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, info on threats to our shipping and homefront activities. Or what about Japanese officers during the same time? Their army was full of fanatical anti-american fervor and a desire to hurt us any way they could. What about the communists in Korea and Vietnam. Wouldn't state sanctioned torture have given us good info that could have saved American soldiers' lives? The answer is that lawful torture is against what we stand for, no matter what we think our enemy might know.

Okay, so your answer is no. You would not water board an al Quadea leader or agent to get info on sleeper cells in the U.S. At least I know where you're coming from.

[ahaha]

The issue is whether more severe forms of interrogation can be used in extreme situations. Let me ask you guys this - how many of you would water-board Kahlid Sheik Mohammed is you knew he knew the whereabouts of al Quaeda sleeper cells in the U.S. and no other methods of interrogation were working? I'd do it in a second.

I hate this argument. It is only in an extreme case like this that this bill makes any sense. The problem is the all the avenues for abuse. All suspects with alleged ties to terrorism are subject to these more severe forms of interrogation(i.e. torture). If this legislation is so important, why wasn't it instituted in the past? Why didn't we torture captured German officers during WWII? We could have gotten critical info on U-boat activity in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, info on threats to our shipping and homefront activities. Or what about Japanese officers during the same time? Their army was full of fanatical anti-american fervor and a desire to hurt us any way they could. What about the communists in Korea and Vietnam. Wouldn't state sanctioned torture have given us good info that could have saved American soldiers' lives? The answer is that lawful torture is against what we stand for, no matter what we think our enemy might know.

Okay, so your answer is no. You would not water board an al Quadea leader or agent to get info on sleeper cells in the U.S. At least I know where you're coming from.

If somebody raped and killed my mother, and I had the chance to water board him, I would. That doesn't mean I'd support a policy of torturing supected rapists and murderers.

[ahaha]

The issue is whether more severe forms of interrogation can be used in extreme situations. Let me ask you guys this - how many of you would water-board Kahlid Sheik Mohammed is you knew he knew the whereabouts of al Quaeda sleeper cells in the U.S. and no other methods of interrogation were working? I'd do it in a second.

I hate this argument. It is only in an extreme case like this that this bill makes any sense. The problem is the all the avenues for abuse. All suspects with alleged ties to terrorism are subject to these more severe forms of interrogation(i.e. torture). If this legislation is so important, why wasn't it instituted in the past? Why didn't we torture captured German officers during WWII? We could have gotten critical info on U-boat activity in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, info on threats to our shipping and homefront activities. Or what about Japanese officers during the same time? Their army was full of fanatical anti-american fervor and a desire to hurt us any way they could. What about the communists in Korea and Vietnam. Wouldn't state sanctioned torture have given us good info that could have saved American soldiers' lives? The answer is that lawful torture is against what we stand for, no matter what we think our enemy might know.

Okay, so your answer is no. You would not water board an al Quadea leader or agent to get info on sleeper cells in the U.S. At least I know where you're coming from.

If somebody raped and killed my mother, and I had the chance to water board him, I would. That doesn't mean I'd support a policy of torturing suspected rapists and murderers.